Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
. a discussion of u.s. energy efforts and the energy policy of the obama administration in the next four years. >> we want to welcome back to our table, president and c.e.o. of the american petroleum institute. let's go back to campaign 2012. the american petroleum institute spent about $868,000 on the 2012 campaign cycle. total contributions, $650,000. contributions to candidates around $220,000. given that you spent a lot on republican governor mitt romney's bid spent more towards republicans, how will this impact your ability to communicate with the white house and the congress? what do you think your relationship will be like? guest: we ran a vote for energy campaign, which was focused on elevating energy to be a top draw issue. we believe was highly successful. both candidates were both giving a full endorsement of oil and natural gas as a key form of energy here in the united states to create jobs and help with our economic recovery. overall, the dollars we spent were not partisan in nature. we weren't supporting one candidate over the other, our candidate was energy and focused on eleva
it now? the obama administration will have an opportunity to look at these proposals in november and december and hopefully decide to take advantage of them and use them next year. also i am hopeful and will recommend that this not just be administrative action. congress should implement this, too. beyond that, we will have the proper recommendations with regard to other issues of security, jobs, efficiencies, innovation. this is such an important part of our economy in america. if we do not do it in the right way, we will make mistakes. when you legislate an atmosphere of crisis, where you have a mess on your hands, you quite often do not do it very well. yes, we are experiencing some good times in energy diversity now. it seems to me now is the opportunity and a fantastic time of challenge for us to develop an overall, the national energy policy to pull things together and plan for the future and not wait for another crisis. another crisis will come. when you look at the impact of energy throughout the world, what is happening with us and how we are all interrelated, it is obvi
. now, look at the role of private enterprise and public education and what the obama administration approach will be in 2013. this is an hour and 35 minutes. >> welcome. thank you for joining us. we are just getting back. the energy level is probably going to get mellow. we will make that work for us. today's panel is on the question of for-profit and federal education policy. this is a topic that we at aei have been talking about for an extended stretch. in support of the templeton foundation, we have been running the private enterprise projects, trying to think about the opportunities and the challenge. how do make this work for kids in the communities? how do we think about some of those challenges the potential perils? this panel is a close up series of panels and conversations. we have commissioned a number of pieces that will be coming up as a book this spring. we have the opportunity to work. those of you with cell phones, in turn them off. why this topic? the vast majority of what we do in america k-12 is done by public institutions. it is done by institutions run by states.
'll disagree with that. but from my view, the obama administration has made it clear, the republicans are in the same place, though i think their anti-federal wing they have party has move today extreme. i look for a shift in inch cament -- to implementation as i mentioned and oversight, waivers that the department's granted, i understand the department is looking to release new rules on teacher preparation, accountability, i think a much-needed effort there. regardless of what those rules are, though, it seems to me this area is ripe for cooperation between the center right and center left. i also know that secretary duncan has said a few time he is wished he had done more on early childhood education. i'm not sure if they're going to propose a new initiative. i certainly hope so. but i think it's a ripe area for investment and reform. now my points are right, the blurring line the need for implementation, the need for a centrist coalition that embraces teachers and parent, that needs fighting on two fronts. while recognizing new issues will emerge that probably fuel this -- few of u
the second term for president obama, jim and so many others alumni will continue to play a very critical role in helping guide the administration's defense and foreign policy. with the election behind us, washington is turning its attention to the unfinished business, particularly the unfinished business of the current congress, including how to avoid falling off a fiscal cliff, how to prevent sequestration from happening and the impact that would have, not just on the defense, but domestic discretionary budget as well, and for our purposes, hopefully there will also take the time to pass a defense authorization in order to be able to set some important policy guidance that we need as we go into this next year. the hope is that obviously these issues can be resolved before the congress adjourns. and obviously we are all hopeful that the leadership will be able to come together to find a way to resolve these issues. these are tough decisions. i have been there and know how tough they are, but they can do it, they can do it. it will take some risks, but that is part of the game, yet to take ris
economy. i will give real credit to the obama administration. it has been very good on investment. foreign investment in the u.s. creates jobs that are disproportionately exports oriented. this is capital we should be fighting for. i think we need to approach trade with the same degree of confidence, and i think the world is ready to engage in this. angela merkel oppose the free trade agreement. i think we should go for it. there is a trans-pacific partnership negotiated. let's proceed with confidence, because i think people want to succeed. >> jonathan would pound the chinese with this thing. what are you going to do if mitt romney calls china a currency manipulator? china did not believe romney would do that, but what is interesting is bill would send these notes out saying barack obama is a bigger thatcher -- china basher. it was a real who issue during the debate. as everyone remember talking about china? we are talking about china. we are talking about 1 billion people coming on line. we got into a discussion about china, and on and said, if we are not careful, china will amex the con
if things got bad. in this era, when i look at the amount of time -- the obama administration more so than the bush administration, when officials meet throughout the region, and the discussion attempt to correlate with china, there seems to be a lot of effort to try to coordinate. jim steinberg was the fourth member of this panel, looking at the island dispute and said, they were shocked and surprised by the level of miscommunication, miss assessment, and the dangers of that between china and japan. it raises the question of whether or not -- i agree. i know china wants respect -- but whether or not what you're seeing is a strategic game or tactical game by china to use this potential mis assessment to look like the unstable part in some of this to basically helped push out its own interest. that worries me a little bit. >> i think the essential question is not of domination or respect, but about whether [indiscernible] will be static or dynamic. there is no way nations are going to agree on what the consider to be the interests. you drop a little bit of energy into this thing and it beco
extended, they were extended again under the obama administration. that's our focus today. part of a series that we're doing here on the "washington journal" that starts today. focusing on different aspects of the so-called fiscal cliff talks. we'll go to michael next in fenton, michigan, independent caller there. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. host: you're on the air, sir. caller: yes, i'm calling this morning to discuss the facts that the disparity in the revenue that's generated in the different tax brackets. it's my understanding that the top 5% roughly makes $150,000, let's just say $200,000 and up. they generate almost 60% of the taxes that the government takes in, the revenue that the government takes in, while the other 95% takes in probably less than 40% of the revenue. guest: i can't recall the exact statistics but it's true that the top few percent aisles of the income distribution pay a hugely digs proportion at share of taxes -- disproportionate share of taxes and that's because they capture a disproportionate amount of income in this country. that come downs to th
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8